Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Panis Angelicus -Pavarotti

SSPX website does not state that Vatican Council made an error : it assumes hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus


Second Vatican Council in session










In 'What are Catholics to think of Vatican II?' on the official website of the SSPX it is no where said that the Council has made an error when it refers to the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.
Also the SSPX website no where affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are hypothetical cases so they never were relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was a mistake in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949, which was accepted as magisterial by the Council Fathers.
Here are examples, of which the SSPX is unaware of .

Image result for Photos of mistakes
LUMEN GENTIUM 8 

 'although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.'-Lumen Gentium 8, Vatican Council II
FALSE PREMISE: 'among persons known to us'
'many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity'  (and they are among persons known to us).
FALSE INFERENCE : 'so all do not need to convert formally into the Church for salvation'.
These are persons known to us, these 'many elements of sanctification and of truth' who ' are found outside of its visible structure.'   So it is concluded that all do not need to convert formally into the Church for salvation, there is salvation outside the Catholic Church. 2
_______________________________
II
'although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.'-Lumen Gentium 8, Vatican Council II
CONCLUSION
it is not always required that he ( a non Catholic, a non baptised person ) be incorporated into the Church actually as a member
WHY ?
Since 'one may obtain eternal salvation' also 'by desire and longing'. Or being one of the 'elements of sanctification and of truth...found outside of its visible structure', 'gifts belonging to the Church of Christ', 'impelling toward catholic unity'.
SO WHAT?
And these cases are known, they are explicit in the present times and so they are exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).We personally know non Catholics saved with  'elements of sanctification and of truth...found outside of its visible structure', 'gifts belonging to the Church of Christ', 'impelling toward catholic unity'. We know of cases now already in Heaven, , as such, who do not have 'faith and baptism'. This is the reasoning here.

HOW CAN THEY BE EXPLICIT FOR US?
Since someone has seen these cases in Heaven saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
Someone knows people who will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.3
_________________________________

The pattern of error from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 can be seen incorporated into Vatican Council II. It would seem as if Vatican Council II was called, only to make official, the error used to reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The SSPX was not aware of this.
This was the pattern: a hypothetical case was considered explicit, real, seen in the fleshThen it was concluded it was an exception to the traditional teaching on salvation.
An irrational premise was made like there are known people in the present times who are saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. Then it was inferred that these cases were exceptions to the traditional, strict interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.
Related imageLAB_82
Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Archbishop Augustine Di Noia and Bishop Bernard Fellay have made the same mistake.
Check out this  pattern of error  in Vatican Council II.
Here are some examples at random.4
Image result for Photos of mistakes

NOSTRA AETATE  2

She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.-Nostra Aetate, Vatican Coun cil II.

FALSE PREMISE: 'among persons known to us'
She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings (in other religions, necessary for salvation among persons known to us
FALSE INFERENCE : 'so all do not need to convert formally into the Church for salvation'.
These persons known to us, reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men, they are saved, so all do not need to convert fornally into the Church for salvation.
_______________________________

II

She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.-Nostra Aetate, Vatican Council II.

CONCLUSION
it is not always required that he ( a non Catholic, a non baptised person ) be incorporated into the Church actually as a member

WHY ?
Since 'one may obtain eternal salvation' also  'by desire and longing'. Or by following 'those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings', which '  reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men ' , which saves.
SO WHAT?
And these cases are known, they are explicit in the present times and so they are exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

HOW CAN THEY BE EXPLICIT FOR US?
Since someone has seen these cases in Heaven saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
Someone knows of persons who will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
_________________________________
Image result for Photos of errors

Unitatis Redintigratio 3
For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Churcheven though this communion is imperfect. - Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Vatican Council II
FALSE PREMISE: 'among persons known to us'
For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized (in other religions, who are saved and  areamong persons known to us

FALSE INFERENCE : 'so all do not need to convert formally into the Church for salvation'.
These persons known to us,  are  in communion with the Catholic Church , they are saved, so all do not need to convert fornally into the Church for salvation.
_______________________________
II

For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. - Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Vatican Council II

CONCLUSION
it is not always required that he( a non Catholic, ) be incorporated into the Church actually as a member


WHY ?
Since 'one may obtain eternal salvation' also  'by desire and longing'. Or by ' believing  in Christ' and being 'truly baptized' .

SO WHAT?
And these cases are known, they are explicit in the present times and so they are exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

HOW CAN THEY BE EXPLICIT FOR US?
Since someone has seen these cases in Heaven saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
Someone knows of persons who will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
_________________________________
Unitatis Redintigratio 3 (continued)
But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body -  Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Vatican Council II

For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. - Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Vatican Council II

FALSE PREMISE: 'among persons known to us'
For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized (in other religions, who are saved and  are among persons known to us

FALSE INFERENCE : 'so all do not need to convert formally into the Church for salvation'.
These persons known to us,  are  in communion with the Catholic Church , they are saved, so all do not need to convert fornally into the Church for salvation.
_______________________________

II

But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body -  Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Vatican Council II

CONCLUSION
it is not always required that he ( a non Catholic) be incorporated into the Church actually as a formal member

WHY ?
Since members of Christ's body ' also include those 'who have been justified by faith in Baptism'.
SO WHAT?
And these cases are known, they are explicit in the present times and so they are exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

HOW CAN THEY BE EXPLICIT FOR US?
Since someone has seen these cases in Heaven saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
Someone knows of persons who will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
_________________________________

Apply the same irrational reasoning to these two passages also from Unitatis Redintigratio 3.
Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.-   Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Vatican Council II
It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.- Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Vatican Council II
_______________________________________

'the separated Churches and Communities as such',' have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation', why had they to mention this in Vatican Council II(UR 3)   ? Since these are hypothetical cases. They are the stuff of speculation?
Why?
Since this was the reasoning in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. Hypothetical cases ( the baptism of desire etc) were assumed to be known and visible (premise) and then it was assumed that they were exceptions and relevant (inference) to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Image result for Photos ignoranceMan standing in park with cardboard box over his head - stock photoIgnoring of yelling people. Woman disregards bullying boss or husband by, metaphorically speaking, covering her ears - stock photo
On the SSPX website these errors are not mentioned. Also the website does not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.-Lionel Andrades

1

http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q6_vatican_ii.htm


2.
False reasoning from the Letter is all over Vatican Council II: Abp Lefebvre did not notice it -3


http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/false-reasoning-from-letter-is-all-over.html
3.
False reasoning from the Letter is all over Vatican Council II: Abp Lefebvre did not notice it -1
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/the-false-reasoning-from-letter-is-all.html


4.
Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/muller-di-noia-and-fellay-made.html

Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective mistake : hypothetical cases are assumed to be explicit

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/muller-di-noia-and-fellay-made_8.html

___________________________________________________________________

SSPX doctrinal position is politically correct and heretical : Bishop Fellay interprets EENS and Vatican Council II assuming hypothetical cases are objectively known in the present times

No one to defend Bishop Bernard Fellay : Heresy

The doctrinal position of Bishop Bernard Fellay is heretical. He also contradicts the SSPX doctrinal General Chapter Statement 2012 which affirmed EENS with NO exceptions

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/the-doctrinal-position-of-bishop.html

_________________________________________________________________

Be Thou My Vision by 4Him -Lyrics (Celtic Version)

O Lord, to be with you, to be free (Sailing - Rod Stewart)

O Lord, to be with you, to be free







SSPX doctrinal position is politically correct and heretical : Bishop Fellay interprets EENS and Vatican Council II assuming hypothetical cases are objectively known in the present times.

The SSPX, USA  has posted on its website its Declaration on the Post-Synodal Exhortation Amoris Laetitia by Pope Francis (March 19, 2016) but there is no declaration on the Vatican Document on inter-religious dialogue with the Jews.So expectedly there will be no comment on the objective mistake Bishop Fellay made on extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and Vatican Council II as reported on this blog.

Since if Bishop Fellay does not interpret EENS and Vatican Council II assuming hypothetical cases are objectively known in the present times,then Vatican Council II, like EENS, would be saying all Jews and other non Catholics and non Christians, are oriented to Hell for not being formal members of the Catholic Church. This would be opposed by the Jewish Left and the Vatican which is presently following a pro-Mason policy.He would be considered Anti-Semitic.
-Lionel Andrades


June 13, 2016
No one to defend Bishop Bernard Fellay : Heresy





http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/no-one-to-defend-bishop-bernard-fellay.html

JUNE 13, 2016

The doctrinal position of Bishop Bernard Fellay is heretical. He also contradicts the SSPX doctrinal General Chapter Statement 2012 which affirmed EENS with NO exceptions

http://eucharistandmission.blospot.it/2016/06/the-doctrinal-position-of-bishop.html

Cardinal Muller, Archbishop Di Noia and Bishop Fellay's theology is based on hypothetical cases being explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/cardinal-muller-archbishop-di-noia-and.html

 
CARDINAL GERHARD MULLER, ARCHBISHOP AUGUSTINE DI NOIA, BISHOP BERNARD FELLAY MISTAKE HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES AS BEING EXPLICIT IN THE PRESENT TIMES
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/cardinal-gerhard-muller-archbishop.html

Image result for Photos of Mons. Clifford Fenton


Apologists Mons. Clifford Fenton, Fr.William Most and Fr. John Hardon considered implicit cases as being explicit: traditionalists agree any one who does this is wrong

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/apologists-mons-clifford-fenton.html






June 10, 2016

Here are the controversial passages again

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/here-are-controversial-passages-again.html